I could cite same reasons not to buy from, say, Intel or Dell. The US record on crimes against Humankind is very decidedly NOT GOOD. You could also say ``I'll only buy <insert-US-based-corp> only if the profit is used to torture `terrorists' in Camp-X (Guantanamo, US-occupied Cuba)''.
And, in fact, since the US-led rape of Iraq, a lot of people around the planet are doing just that, boycotting US products.
>Doing so would potentially create legal trouble for all other freenet users which allow those types of files.
Then we need sensible laws.
And if you can't change bad laws, you live in an Orwellian regime. And if you live in an Orwellian nightmare, like I the one I grew up in, then you'd kill for Freenet---how do you even discuss that the regime is totalitarian? how do you tell the truth without being murdered (I am NOT exagerating!) how do you plan to overthrow it?
Man, may the gods bless the Freenet and its creators! It may become our last line of defense agains the Shadow. And kiddie porn is not going to stop because you kill freedom of information, nor is it going to increase because of it. Sick people are sick people; gagging them does not restrain their hands (nor other parts of their anatomy).
And to be outrageously logical: In fact, the distribution of kiddie porn could perhaps decrease the incidence of child abuse for pornography, because the pr0n is already DONE and there is less desire to make what's already there. And perhaps the fantasasing with pictures could sublimate and help some not to physically do those things--after all, they are sick, not necessarily evil all of them. Or the child could the identified and so get the help and protection he/she so desperately needs. Then again, maybe none of this will happen, but in any case censorship won't help any of these abused children, period.
No, the issue of child abuse won't be solved by censorship, no more than murder or rape or the poisoning of food with noxious chemicals by corps will be.
RIAA's Oppenheim suggests: "Other than the fact that most infringers do not like to use Freenet because it is too clunky for them to get their quick hit of free music, it is no more of a threat than any of the popular P2P services."
GOOD.
I hope FreeNet does more than just threaten, but that this putative threat actualises---the RIAA is a crime of lesa humanitas. The world will be a better place when the RIAA is gone, gone.
In first half of the 20th century, new technologies made possible a new bussiness model for music: the sale of recordings of the music, creating a market that was the analog to the marked that existed for writing, and that was made possible by the printing press.
By the end of the 20th century, another new technology made this bussiness model of selling recordings no longer viable.
Now, at in the very first years of the 21st century, this model no longer viable, we are seeing the fight of those that grew powerfull under conditions that no longer exist, to revert History, to revert the flow of time. It's a bloody battle repeated oveer the centuries, that always created a lot of senseless suffering and ever ends the same way: with the defeat of those who oppose History.
Recording companies---that were empires---are simply doomed, unless they use their vast resources to reinvent themselves and create a new viable bussiness model. Musicians will have to go back to making a living the way they did before recordings were marketable, or find novel ways using the new technologies that killed the market for recordings.
Meanwhile, I'm not buying recordings. May the RIAA and the other stupid would-be History-stoppers die off already!
In the long run, will biology rewrite computing or will modern day technology concepts and theory be integrated into biology? If both are true, which will have the greater effect? I understand long run is ambiguous in this question, but Iâ(TM)m interested in all thoughts using any applicable definition.
The first. Biology is just superior cybernetics. See cybernetic biology and autopoeiesis.
Tied to the first question: How will the nature of computing, and how we perceive it, change due to biology integration? More to the point, how much of the theory we learn today may change?
Self-conscious computers are only possible if we mimic biological self-generation (autopoiesis), without self-generation there is not self, whithout self there can be no self-consciousness.
What will be the biggest issue determining the success of the adoption of biology-integrated computing? Will it be technology factors or will it be societal factors (e.g., rebellion by the Right Wing), or something else? What things must hold true to make the idea succeed?
Exterminate traditional (pre-cybernetic) biologists!!!:-P
No, really, there is a question of paradigm shift involved; traditionalist biologists are the greatest obstacle in the development of both biology and para-biological computing.
And perhaps the hottest issue of all: Is there anything inherently wrong with pursuing this avenue? What may be some of the consequences?
Inherently wrong? Nothing I can think of. Consequence, and rather serious, would be for humanity to face an alien intelligence---at least it scare the willies out of me. Another consequence would be the de-icing of research on evolution as the Great Neodawinian Theoreticl Winter finally comes to an end.
No, it's not too far. Not for public stuff. State's money should not be spent without reason and only to maximize public benefit, and public information should only be handled by public software.
I congratulate my Brazilian brothers on a smart decision. Otimo!!! Brasil, o pinguino mais grande do mundo:-)
Learn biology, and specially cybernetic biology, the modern stuff (post-1970s) that most schools won't teach. You probably will have to go to Europe, or perhaps Latin America to find such courses, though.
What would you call us? United States of Americans?
Actually, pretty much that: estadounidenses (=``from the United States''). And it's official usage. In English, I follow the growing usage of calling you ``Usans''. [Of course, we could refer to you as ``Users'' if you like.]
Sorry, the continent is called ``America''. It has been called that for some 500 years (since about the time of Americo Vespucio, or a little later, actually). It's often divided into 3 parts: South America, Central America, and North America.
I am an AMERICAN.
I live in AMERICA.
Me too and me too!
Any questions?
Two questions: (1) In which American country were you born? (2) In which American country do you live now?
Am i to be 'liberated' next?
Have you done anything stupid lately
Like been born in a nation with natural resources but no nukes? Yes, I have. I'm trying to fix the second part, though.
No one else in the Americas seems to have a problem understanding that when America is mentioned it means the USA. Whats you're problem?
Such arrogance! >:-( Sure we do! USAns are too ignorant to know about it, and just don't care if they do notice, that's all.
Even you are afraid of being liberated for waking the giant with a big stick.
Well, no. I'm afraid of people who are so afraid---because of their feeling of inadequacy?---that can never feel safe as equals [the def of a bully]. Peace is for the strong, the fearful attack.
The average lifespan of an Empire is 300 years. The US has been an empire for a much shorter time.
Things are moving much faster now, in case you didn't notice. I'd say the US may be very weel be ripe.
Thanks for the pointer about Moore. I'll check him.
Firstly, please, don't call the US ``America''. America is a continent of over 20 countries.
Secondly, you do well to be afraid. I am scared too.
Thirdly, about the need for those weapons: I've always wondered why are USAns so afraid, and what are they so afraid of? But I am beginning to think that they are right, in a sickly way: USAns feel threatened, and it's because, perhaps subconsciously, feel that they are not good enough, that their time is up, that their country can't keep up with the times. I know it sounds odd, but I truly believe there is some truth to this insight.
So, yes, I think that there are enemies that are powerful enough to threat the USA. Russia and China, to begin with---don't subestimate them. But the worst threat to the USA is the USA itself---it's destroying itself, and fast. The US will may very well pay with it's own existance for the oil it's looting.
Anyone for titanium foam, self-assembled protein meshes, molecular optronics, parabiological components, linear electric motors (pseudomuscle), active electro-thermo-bio-cammo, para-sentient infosystems, and symbio-skin? Ah, and cellular universal microrobots? And since we are at it, what about animal-based combat cyborgs to assist human soldiers in the battlefield?
The evidence is out there for anyone who wants to see: just as a couple of glaring examples, thake the Prohibition in the USA as unerfoceable laws, and take MPAA and RIAA viciousness who act that way only because people don't give a damm about copywrong and that toxic oxymoron ``intellectual property''. And thank providence, because that's why society has come to a halt, as it would if those legal fictions were enforced. Think ``1984'' for what it would take to enforce it, and also what the effect of the enforcement would be.
The goods news is that most people do not agree with copywrong and the nonsensical notion of``intellectual property''.
You just can't enforce a law that honest people reject (not without a oppresive regime), and indeed it's very dangerous for governments to even try, because if you have to break the law to do what you think is right, then the Law as a whole is debased.
The US will soon learn that there is a price to being the BIG&BAD BULLY of the world. I already see a shift away from the US in many ways. People simply don't trust the US anymore. And I mean decent, rational, practical, sensible people, not fanatics or political radicals. The slogan ``The US can't be trusted'' is already branded in fire in many people's though processes.
Face it, the US looted Iraq at the cost of losing the world. From now on, I'm afraid it's downhill for the US.
As usual, the decent people will pay for the assholes. ``Life's a bitch 'n she'n is heat'' and all that.
Well, according to the conventions, the oldest name must be used. Homo Linnaeus, 1758, is older than Pan Oken, 1816. Then again, it's a human convention!
Funny thing is, the chimpanzee was originally described as Homo troglodytes. Linneaus did it, blame him;). And a hundred years before that overrated Darwin guy!
I believe the current `consensus' (read ``the Prof. Bigshots said that & don't you dare disagree'';-) is that Neardenthals are diff enough from us to warrant their own species. This comes from genetic evidence (fossil DNA). On this point (and this point and only a few more;) I agree with the Bigshots; modern humans and Neardenthals are different species. Of course, we could (I, Me, Myself, and the Bighshots;) be wrong.
And this question is not a matter of taste; but a serious one: species are supposed to be real, unlike genera and higher categories that are taken as conveniences (I mean on which level to use for the lineage, like genus or subgenus or family).
Anyway, traditional (pseudo)biologists have no clue what species are, much less how to reliably tell them apart. [Indeed, most `biologists' cannot even define life.]
Taxonomists fall into two groups (just like everybody else): "lumpers" and "splitters." The lumpers want to put everything into the same genus, while the splitters love subspeciation...
Not subspeciation, but subdivision. And I guess I myself could be called a splitter, most of the time---I passed several genera trough the lawnmower for my thesis.
Slashdot Mirror
I often paraphrase a famous saying about the Solar System to illustrate your point: Humanity is made up of China and assorted minor societies.
I could cite same reasons not to buy from, say, Intel or Dell. The US record on crimes against Humankind is very decidedly NOT GOOD. You could also say ``I'll only buy <insert-US-based-corp> only if the profit is used to torture `terrorists' in Camp-X (Guantanamo, US-occupied Cuba)''.
And, in fact, since the US-led rape of Iraq, a lot of people around the planet are doing just that, boycotting US products.
Oh, BTW: FREE IRAQ!
>Doing so would potentially create legal trouble for all other freenet users which allow those types of files.
Then we need sensible laws.
And if you can't change bad laws, you live in an Orwellian regime. And if you live in an Orwellian nightmare, like I the one I grew up in, then you'd kill for Freenet---how do you even discuss that the regime is totalitarian? how do you tell the truth without being murdered (I am NOT exagerating!) how do you plan to overthrow it?
Man, may the gods bless the Freenet and its creators! It may become our last line of defense agains the Shadow. And kiddie porn is not going to stop because you kill freedom of information, nor is it going to increase because of it. Sick people are sick people; gagging them does not restrain their hands (nor other parts of their anatomy).
And to be outrageously logical: In fact, the distribution of kiddie porn could perhaps decrease the incidence of child abuse for pornography, because the pr0n is already DONE and there is less desire to make what's already there. And perhaps the fantasasing with pictures could sublimate and help some not to physically do those things--after all, they are sick, not necessarily evil all of them. Or the child could the identified and so get the help and protection he/she so desperately needs. Then again, maybe none of this will happen, but in any case censorship won't help any of these abused children, period.
No, the issue of child abuse won't be solved by censorship, no more than murder or rape or the poisoning of food with noxious chemicals by corps will be.
Aren't we lucky that we have the [Soyuz] that actually DO work?
RIAA's Oppenheim suggests: "Other than the fact that most infringers do not like to use Freenet because it is too clunky for them to get their quick hit of free music, it is no more of a threat than any of the popular P2P services."
GOOD.
I hope FreeNet does more than just threaten, but that this putative threat actualises---the RIAA is a crime of lesa humanitas. The world will be a better place when the RIAA is gone, gone.
All the bloodshed, all the anger,
All the weapons, all the greed,
All the armies, all the missiles,
All the symbols of your fear.
---Sting, ``Love is the seventh wave''.
Usans are so afraid that they are scary. When will they become part of the world? They will be welcome.
What else is there to say? Really.
Actually, it's Tux.
In first half of the 20th century, new technologies made possible a new bussiness model for music: the sale of recordings of the music, creating a market that was the analog to the marked that existed for writing, and that was made possible by the printing press.
By the end of the 20th century, another new technology made this bussiness model of selling recordings no longer viable.
Now, at in the very first years of the 21st century, this model no longer viable, we are seeing the fight of those that grew powerfull under conditions that no longer exist, to revert History, to revert the flow of time. It's a bloody battle repeated oveer the centuries, that always created a lot of senseless suffering and ever ends the same way: with the defeat of those who oppose History.
Recording companies---that were empires---are simply doomed, unless they use their vast resources to reinvent themselves and create a new viable bussiness model. Musicians will have to go back to making a living the way they did before recordings were marketable, or find novel ways using the new technologies that killed the market for recordings.
Meanwhile, I'm not buying recordings. May the RIAA and the other stupid would-be History-stoppers die off already!
In the long run, will biology rewrite computing or will modern day technology concepts and theory be integrated into biology? If both are true, which will have the greater effect? I understand long run is ambiguous in this question, but Iâ(TM)m interested in all thoughts using any applicable definition.
The first. Biology is just superior cybernetics. See cybernetic biology and autopoeiesis.
Tied to the first question: How will the nature of computing, and how we perceive it, change due to biology integration? More to the point, how much of the theory we learn today may change?
Self-conscious computers are only possible if we mimic biological self-generation (autopoiesis), without self-generation there is not self, whithout self there can be no self-consciousness.
What will be the biggest issue determining the success of the adoption of biology-integrated computing? Will it be technology factors or will it be societal factors (e.g., rebellion by the Right Wing), or something else? What things must hold true to make the idea succeed?
Exterminate traditional (pre-cybernetic) biologists!!! :-P
No, really, there is a question of paradigm shift involved; traditionalist biologists are the greatest obstacle in the development of both biology and para-biological computing.
And perhaps the hottest issue of all: Is there anything inherently wrong with pursuing this avenue? What may be some of the consequences?
Inherently wrong? Nothing I can think of. Consequence, and rather serious, would be for humanity to face an alien intelligence---at least it scare the willies out of me. Another consequence would be the de-icing of research on evolution as the Great Neodawinian Theoreticl Winter finally comes to an end.
Given the history of reliability of US spacecraft, I'd feel much safer if the contract had been awarded to the Russians.
No, it's not too far. Not for public stuff. State's money should not be spent without reason and only to maximize public benefit, and public information should only be handled by public software.
I congratulate my Brazilian brothers on a smart decision. Otimo!!! Brasil, o pinguino mais grande do mundo :-)
Learn biology, and specially cybernetic biology, the modern stuff (post-1970s) that most schools won't teach. You probably will have to go to Europe, or perhaps Latin America to find such courses, though.
What would you call us? United States of Americans?
Actually, pretty much that: estadounidenses (=``from the United States''). And it's official usage. In English, I follow the growing usage of calling you ``Usans''. [Of course, we could refer to you as ``Users'' if you like.]
I am American, not (Eura)Asian. Born, raised, and living America all my life, in 4 different countries.
Sorry, the continent is called ``America''. It has been called that for some 500 years (since about the time of Americo Vespucio, or a little later, actually). It's often divided into 3 parts: South America, Central America, and North America.
I am an AMERICAN.
I live in AMERICA.
Me too and me too!
Any questions?
Two questions: (1) In which American country were you born? (2) In which American country do you live now?
Am i to be 'liberated' next?
Have you done anything stupid lately
Like been born in a nation with natural resources but no nukes? Yes, I have. I'm trying to fix the second part, though.
No one else in the Americas seems to have a problem understanding that when America is mentioned it means the USA. Whats you're problem?
Such arrogance! >:-( Sure we do! USAns are too ignorant to know about it, and just don't care if they do notice, that's all.
Even you are afraid of being liberated for waking the giant with a big stick.
Well, no. I'm afraid of people who are so afraid---because of their feeling of inadequacy?---that can never feel safe as equals [the def of a bully]. Peace is for the strong, the fearful attack.
The average lifespan of an Empire is 300 years. The US has been an empire for a much shorter time.
Things are moving much faster now, in case you didn't notice. I'd say the US may be very weel be ripe.
Thanks for the pointer about Moore. I'll check him.
Firstly, please, don't call the US ``America''. America is a continent of over 20 countries.
Secondly, you do well to be afraid. I am scared too.
Thirdly, about the need for those weapons: I've always wondered why are USAns so afraid, and what are they so afraid of? But I am beginning to think that they are right, in a sickly way: USAns feel threatened, and it's because, perhaps subconsciously, feel that they are not good enough, that their time is up, that their country can't keep up with the times. I know it sounds odd, but I truly believe there is some truth to this insight.
So, yes, I think that there are enemies that are powerful enough to threat the USA. Russia and China, to begin with---don't subestimate them. But the worst threat to the USA is the USA itself---it's destroying itself, and fast. The US will may very well pay with it's own existance for the oil it's looting.
Post CommentIt's time for power armor.
Anyone for titanium foam, self-assembled protein meshes, molecular optronics, parabiological components, linear electric motors (pseudomuscle), active electro-thermo-bio-cammo, para-sentient infosystems, and symbio-skin? Ah, and cellular universal microrobots? And since we are at it, what about animal-based combat cyborgs to assist human soldiers in the battlefield?
BTW: Why are USAns so afraid?
Well, you think wrong. Or do you think at all?
The evidence is out there for anyone who wants to see: just as a couple of glaring examples, thake the Prohibition in the USA as unerfoceable laws, and take MPAA and RIAA viciousness who act that way only because people don't give a damm about copywrong and that toxic oxymoron ``intellectual property''. And thank providence, because that's why society has come to a halt, as it would if those legal fictions were enforced. Think ``1984'' for what it would take to enforce it, and also what the effect of the enforcement would be.
The goods news is that most people do not agree with copywrong and the nonsensical notion of``intellectual property''.
You just can't enforce a law that honest people reject (not without a oppresive regime), and indeed it's very dangerous for governments to even try, because if you have to break the law to do what you think is right, then the Law as a whole is debased.
There are several models of Yakovlyovi carrier-based jet fighters (Yak-36, Yak-38, Yak-141 ) that are VTOL. Also, CHEAP!!!
The US will soon learn that there is a price to being the BIG&BAD BULLY of the world. I already see a shift away from the US in many ways. People simply don't trust the US anymore. And I mean decent, rational, practical, sensible people, not fanatics or political radicals. The slogan ``The US can't be trusted'' is already branded in fire in many people's though processes.
Face it, the US looted Iraq at the cost of losing the world. From now on, I'm afraid it's downhill for the US.
As usual, the decent people will pay for the assholes. ``Life's a bitch 'n she'n is heat'' and all that.
Funny thing is, the chimpanzee was originally described as Homo troglodytes. Linneaus did it, blame him ;). And a hundred years before that overrated Darwin guy!
I believe the current `consensus' (read ``the Prof. Bigshots said that & don't you dare disagree'' ;-) is that Neardenthals are diff enough from us to warrant their own species. This comes from genetic evidence (fossil DNA). On this point (and this point and only a few more ;) I agree with the Bigshots; modern humans and Neardenthals are different species. Of course, we could (I, Me, Myself, and the Bighshots ;) be wrong.
And this question is not a matter of taste; but a serious one: species are supposed to be real, unlike genera and higher categories that are taken as conveniences (I mean on which level to use for the lineage, like genus or subgenus or family). Anyway, traditional (pseudo)biologists have no clue what species are, much less how to reliably tell them apart. [Indeed, most `biologists' cannot even define life.]
Taxonomists fall into two groups (just like everybody else): "lumpers" and "splitters." The lumpers want to put everything into the same genus, while the splitters love subspeciation...
Not subspeciation, but subdivision. And I guess I myself could be called a splitter, most of the time---I passed several genera trough the lawnmower for my thesis.